The Truth They Don't Want You To Know!!!

Posts tagged ‘High-Voltage Power Lines’

Google Maps fixing its N-word problem and The CERN WORD

Google is fixing an issue with its Google Maps search function, which currently leads people to The White House if they search for variations of the n-word with the word house.

Multiple media outlets, including the Washington Post and the Huffington Post, reported the issue Tuesday afternoon after a Twitter user first posted a screen shot of the problem.

“Some inappropriate results are surfacing in Google Maps that should not be, and we apologize for any offense this may have caused,” a Google spokeswoman said in an email statement.

The reason for the problem is unclear, but one search expert thinks it’s likely due to how Google links certain phrases and terms to locations on the map.

“What we think is the cause, is that Google is seeing how people are talking about places on blogs, and Google’s making those associations,” Danny Sullivan, the notable founding editor of Search Engine Land, told CNNMoney. Sullivan says this isn’t a problem where someone overtly made this search query redirect to The White House.

“People might be saying [these things] generally, and it doesn’t even need to be a lot references,” he added. “It’s kind of crowdsoucing terms gone bad.”

This is the second major Google Maps issue in the past two months.

watch the videos:

============

In April, someone discovered an illustration of an Android robot peeing on an Apple logo in a rural area of Pakistan. Google suspended its public Map Maker tool and started to review every submission manually after the incident.

Google says it is working to fix The White House Google Maps issue “quickly.”

Google Maps shuts down editing after ‘robot peeing’ incident

Tsk, tsk. It was too much of a good thing.

Starting on Tuesday, Google is suspending its public Map Maker tool — preventing its community of users from independently adding landmarks and helpful tips to Google Maps.

The reason? There are too many pranksters out there.

Until recently, a loyal community amateur cartographers routinely edited Google Maps with little oversight. But after someone created a fake park in Pakistan — in the shape of an Android robot peeing on an Apple logo — Google imposed a strict review process.

The company started to manually review every submission. But Google (GOOGL, Tech30) now says it can’t handle the deluge of work coming in. Pavithra Kanakarajan, a member of the company’s Google Maps team, explained the situation in a blog post Friday.

“Every edit you make is essentially going to a backlog that is growing very fast,” she said. “It is not fair to any of our users to let them continue to spend time editing.”

Kanakarajan said “the most recent incident” — likely the peeing Android robot — came from “a strong user in our community.” That explains why no one noticed the image sooner.

In the old system, Google mappers edited fellow mappers. Prolific contributors gained enough trust that their submissions were no longer subject to public review before going live.

And these map edits were most likely in rural areas. After all, Google created Map Maker in 2011 to improve the accuracy of its popular tool. Locals know if a highway is a one-way road, or if there’s a small lake. That’s especially true in rural regions that don’t get analyzed often by satellites in space.

That peeing Android robot was created as a fake park in the outskirts of Rawalpindi, a Pakistani city less than 10 miles southwest of Islamabad.

And it looks like this wasn’t the only incident. In her note, Kanakarajan said “we have been experiencing escalated attacks to spam Google Maps over the past few months.”

A Google spokesperson said some users have been creating “all kinds of map pranks,” such as fake highway exits.

But Google isn’t saying who this mysterious map editor was — or when the map editing tool might come back.

THE WASHINGTON POST WOW REALLY B/S ALERT

READ THIS FIRST

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.

Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”

To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level.

Now one can certainly argue that some aspects of U.S. government should become less direct, and filtered through more layers of representation. One can argue, for instance, that the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and that U.S. senators should no longer be elected directly by the people, but should return to being elected by state legislators who are elected by the people. Or one can argue for repealing state- and local-level initiative and referendum schemes. Or one can argue for making the Electoral College into a deliberative body, in which the electors are supposed to discuss the candidates and make various political deals, rather than being elected solely to vote for particular candidates. And of course one can equally argue for making some aspects of U.S. government more direct, for instance by shifting to truly direct election of the president, or by institute a federal-level initiative and referendum.

But there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow “not a democracy, but a republic.” “Democracy” and “republic” aren’t just words that a speaker can arbitrarily define to mean something (e.g., defining democracy as “a form of government in which all laws are made directly by the people”). They are terms that have been given meaning by English speakers more broadly. And both today and in the Framing era, “democracy” has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy.

============================

Grant HERMES is reporting on the scene from the Waco Texas , Twin Peaks, BIKER BRAWL between the Cossacks , Scimitars, Leathernecks, and the Bandidos… 9 killed 18 injured.

Twin Peaks = freakish TV show which took place in Twin Peaks, Washington

Cossack:

“A cossack is a member of a people of southern Russia and Ukraine, noted for their horsemanship and military skill.”

Leatherneck:

Leatherneck is a military slang term for a member of the United States Marine Corps, or of the British Royal Marines

Scimitar:

“A Scimitar is a sword with a curved blade that was used in the past especially in the Middle East and western Asia”

Bandido:

“A bandido is a Mexican bandit, especially as represented in movies and popular culture.”

“The Bandidos Motorcycle Club, also known as the Bandido Nation, is a “one-percenter” motorcycle club and organized crime syndicate with a worldwide membership. The club was formed in 1966 by Don Chambers in Texas.”

So we have the “ONE %” + “Marines” verses “RUSSIA” who is allied with Middle East?

9 killed and 18 injured.

And a quote from the police captain ..

“In my nearly 35 years of law enforcement experience”

35 years?

What happened 35 years ago today? The peak of Mount Saint Helens in Washington State blew.

COUNTERPOINT PART IV

Before beginning the next part of this series, I would like to ask two critical questions:

1. How did a country founded on Christian principles become so apostate?

The comprehensive answer to this question has many contributing factors. However, there is one in particular that should enrage anyone who has affection for either this country or the souls of its progeny. That is the systematic teaching of evolution in a manner that tears down the faith of young minds through the use of clever arguments based on lies and distorted interpretations of the facts. To be clear, an honest and sincere examination of all theories of origins is scientifically acceptable. In so doing, truth will fall where it should fall. However, the facts presented in current teachings are tortured to fit a theory that is irrational and in many cases, conflicts with known facts and laws of genetics, as well as direct observation. And as far as the separation of church and state goes: if it is acceptable to teach a theory implying that a religiously held belief is perhaps incorrect, then teaching another theory that supports a religiously held belief may be correct should also be acceptable. After all, schools in America should not exist to promote one ideology over another. They should exist to promote academic education, which never thrives in the face of censorship.

This begs the next question:2. Where is the outrage?

To those that claim to have found peace with the theory of evolution by coming to the conclusion that God could have brought everything into existence through evolution: that is NOT what His Word tells us. His Word tells us that He created everything in six days – and a scholarly translation of those six days means a literal 24-hour period and not six days composed of thousands of years. Our children very clearly understand that if evolution is true then God is either a liar or non-existent. Science through the use of evolution tries to answer that question. Therefore, since this is perhaps one of the most important questions a human being can ask themselves, an honest presentation of science is paramount. It affects the way a human being may live, which also affects the culture in which that human may live.

Part IV of this commentary on Pearson/Prentice Hall’s Biology 2006 textbook by Miller and Levine will concentrate on embryology, imagined by several people in the distant past but first made popular by Ernest Haeckel.

Evaluation ; – Page 385 –
Similarities in Embryology The early stages, or embryos, of many animals with backbones are very similar…What do these similarities mean? (Emphasis as it appears in the textbook.)

Darwin also had something to say about the necessary similarities of embryos that his theory pre-supposed.

He stated:

“Generally the embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are
closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar. “

Ernst Haeckel, a contemporary of Darwin, ran with this concept and drew diagrams of selected animals to demonstrate this commonality.

Background: in order for embryology (the study of the growth and development of embryos from conception to birth) to support evolution, Darwin and Haeckel claimed that the evolutionary history of vertebrate species can be seen in its embryonic stages. In other words, invertebrate animals go through the same stages of development as their predecessors and in so doing, repeat the embryonic stages of their evolutionary predecessors before developing into their evolved stage. Haeckel went so far as to create a very scientific-sounding name for his theory. He called it “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”: “ontogeny” meaning changes in growth and development patterns and “phylogeny” meaning the evolutionary history of a species, and “recapitulates” being somewhat repetitive and meaning that during the embryonic period of an animal’s life, it repeats the development stages of its evolutionary ancestor. Both Haeckel and Darwin believed that this was evidence that these species shared a common ancestor.

But are the early stages, or embryos, of many animals with backbones similar, as the book claims?

Page 385, Figure 15-17, which presents a picture of a chicken, turtle and rat in their embryonic stage states:
In their early stages of development, chickens, turtles, and rats look similar, providing
evidence that they shared a common ancestry…

Counterpoint – Is this true? Once again, the facts have been twisted and/or left out to give the appearance of truth. The book admits that Haeckel “fudged” to make the earliest stages of some embryos seem more similar than they actually are. But it also goes on to say immediately afterward:

“Errors aside, however, it is clear that the same groups of embryonic cells, develop in the same order and in similar patterns to produce the tissues and organs of all (emphasis mine) vertebrates.”

This statement is more than misleading. To be kind, I will say it is disingenuous. Not only was Haeckel exposed as a fraud during his lifetime because the drawings he produced were altered to fit his theory, but he also handpicked embryos that happened to look somewhat similar and concluded that all vertebrate embryos at the earliest stages of development appear to be similar. For example, he disregarded the images of fishes and amphibians within their own classification that looked significantly different and at the earliest stages of development. Disregarding any examples that contradict your theory does not qualify as including all!

There is a point in development where some embryos look similar but that is for a very brief period and not at the early stages, as claimed and as would be expected. From the time of conception and as the cell divides, the stages of development are extremely different. Additionally, the features that look similar turn out to develop into very different organs for very different functions. In other words, Haeckel chose the examples that best fit his theory and artistically altered them. Then he disregarded the many examples that contradicted his theory. Of course, students are not told that the differences are evident in the early stages of development, as well as the cell movements from the time of fertility through mature development.

Today some biology books still go as far as telling students that the folds in the neck areas of embryos represent gill slits that are evidence of our early stages of evolutionary development – in spite of the fact that we now know that these folds are called pharyngeal “clefs” or “pouches” and develop into the inner ear and parathyroid gland in other species – including humans!

The problems that genetics present for this position are also ignored, including the fact that DNA and RNA prevent the reproduction of any species with another species, which if thought through the theory presumes. In other words, if different species developed at different embryological stages, that new species would not be able to reproduce unless another new species of the same kind developed at the same time and in the same geographic location and somehow they managed to connect. Genetics also dictates that from conception onward, the genetic codes of each species is very specific and only in rare occasions will it allow for hybrid reproductions, which usually are sterile and do not happen naturally .

Regardless of the evidence, the iconographic pictures of altered embryos remains one of evolutions strongest arguments for common ancestry and some version of these continue to appear in this textbook as well as others.

Why? Why would textbooks keep regurgitating failed theories when they state that support for these failed theories exist? If that were true, why would they not present the successful and perfected theories instead? This textbook does the same when it comes to the Miller-Urey experiments, discussed in Part 2 of this series. It presents the failed theory and/or experiment, states that other successful experiments and/or theories exist to support it, but then neglects to present those theories.

In the words of one of the world’s most prominent evolutionist, the late Stephen Jay Gould:

“The iconography of persuasion strikes even closer than words to the core of our being.
Every demagogue, every humorist, every advertising executive, has known and exploited
the evocative power of a well-chosen picture…These are the most potent sources of conformity, since ideas passing as descriptions lead us to equate the tentative with the unambiguously factual. “

And I would like to add: when pictures appear in textbooks and are presented by a teacher in a classroom with all kinds of scientific-sounding assertions, the authority of their word prevails against the undeveloped critical thinking skills of students. To make matters worse, parents all over the world have neglected their biblical directive to personally educate their children (see Prov. 24:3ff) and the secularists have been more than happy to fill in the gap. Yet we dare to wonder how a country founded on Christian principles became so apostate? There is no mystery here – just an honest look at classrooms across America and their textbooks provide the answer.

Question from TPATH to RoseAnn: Please understand that I am not disputing your statement regarding the true intent and meaning of the the length of a day as you described at the beginning of this PART IV. However, as there any other reference in the Old or New Testament that will confirm that statement? This question was inspired by the written accounts that Moses lived beyond 500 years of age. Could this have been or is there a misconception in the actual length of a year, a day, etc.?

Operation Jade Helm 15: Exercise to end all exercises?

DoomProfessor2 details some interesting points regarding the full Jade Helm 15 operations. The connections put forward are very alarming if only half were true. The unconventional urban warfare operations

Are you unsure about what our military will do if martial law is enacted? Are you unsure what all of the Helicopter exercises in big cities were all about? With everything we know so far about Jade Helm, the story officials tell us do not add up to an exercise for use overseas!

CORRECTION: I state in video name of Military person who spoke with Newspaper reporter was same name as Bastrop Tx Jade Helm official. That was incorrect.

Article History Note:
The first Model 369 prototype flew on 27 February 1963. Originally designated the YHO-6A under the army’s designation system, the aircraft was redesignated the YOH-6A under the Department of Defense‘s new joint system in 1962. Five prototypes were built, fitted with a 252 shp (188 kW) AllisonT63-A-5A, and delivered to the U.S. Army at Fort Rucker, Alabama to compete against the other 10 prototype aircraft submitted by Bell and Fairchild-Hiller. In the end, Hughes won the competition and the Army awarded a contract for production in May 1965. The initial order was for 714 aircraft, but that was later increased to 1,300 with an option to buy another 114. Seventy helicopters were built in the first month.

Video Description:

JADE HELM. What is it? What are the details? Should I be concerned? What are the symbols? Who are the actors? Learn the secrets of JADE HELM 15 in this special report: JADE HELM: DECODED.

We need your help to spread the word on how to “Abolish the Corporate Government” so please, you have our permission to copy, paste, remix, repost, ect… to get the message out to as many people as you can. Our so called Government is nothing more than a bunch of money hungry Satanists who wish to control this entire planet, and to depopulate it, exterminate us from existence, we have to stop them, one way is to spread the truth about them, and what they are trying to do to us. So please help us do this.

COUNTERPOINT PART III

Commentary By:

TPATH Contributor

Ms. RoseAnn Salanitri

TPATH ~ May 3, 2015 ~ As discussed in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, I will be reviewing the most popular biology textbook in America, Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2006, Biology, written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine. I am doing so to offer a “counterpoint” to their interpretation of origins, which has been cleverly designed by the authors to mislead students through psychological manipulations, tortured interpretations of the facts, and downright lies. It is my hope that this work will serve as an instrument for parents and church leaders in defending the biblical account of origins that is being assaulted in academia and used as a tool to tear down the students’ trust in the Word of God – and subsequently to challenge their faith in the existence of God Himself.

Before beginning my counterpoint argument against Punctuated Equilibrium, as presented on page 439 of the textbook, it is necessary to establish the importance of qualifying something as a “theory.”

Page 14 – correctly defines how a theory is developed. It states:

In science, the word theory applies to a well-tested explanation that unifies a
broad range of observations. A theory enables scientists to make accurate predictions
about new situations. (Emphasis as it appears in the textbook.)

Counterpoint – The book mentions but cleverly does not stress the importance of making accurate predictions that testing is supposed to verify. And it also does not address the many predictions Darwin made about his “theory” that the evidence has disqualified. Most noteworthy, Darwin made several predictions that can be found in his Origin of Species, 6th edition, chapters 6, 10, 15. He correctly predicted:

If my theory be true, numberless varieties, linking closely together all the species

of the same group, must assuredly have existed…

The number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct

species, must have been inconceivably great…

An interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed…

Darwin’s predictions were legitimate and logical. If his theory was true, certainly there would have been an enormous amount of transitional fossils for all categories of life. At the time Darwin made these predictions, the fields of paleontology (the study of the history of living organisms) and geology were young and burgeoning sciences. Over a century and a half later, that is no longer the case.

So what about the “well-tested” explanation of the theory mentioned on page 14 of the textbook? Has science documented in the quantities Darwin predicted the gradual transition from one living species to another referred to as Descent with Modification?

The answer is a loud and resounding NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Despite the facts, evolutionists will tell you that there are numerous transitional fossils that have been found as evidence of evolution. I will devote another segment of this series to examine the so-called “evidences of evolution”, and argue that they should more properly be called “evidences of deception.”

What does the real evidence show?

In 1999, Prof. Steve Jones of University College of London published his own version of Darwin’s Origin of Species. On page 252 of this publication, Almost Like a Whale, he stated:

The fossil record – in defiance of Darwin’s whole idea of gradual change – often makes
great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be
expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without
warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and
gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.

Contrary to the predictions made by Darwin, gradualism from a common ancestor in the fossil record is nowhere to be found. After over a century and a half of paleontological and geological research, the fossil record shows that there was a sudden explosion of life forms at what evolutionists call the Cambrian period and these life forms continue the same as we observe them today. In light of strong evidence to the contrary, the theory of evolution has not abandoned its suppositions; instead it has attempted to explain the evidence in a way to make it conform to their theory.

How have evolutionists tortured the evidence to fit their theory?

They have proposed that life continues in a static way until there is a sudden and rapid genetic change in a small period of time. The idea was first proposed by German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt in the 1940s and 50s. It was called the Hopeful Monster Hypothesis. Aside from the laughable suggestion that lacks logic as well as a mechanism, the idea that all of a sudden one species rapidly changes enough to give birth to another species in a small period of time is beyond ridiculous – aside from which there is no supporting evidence. And if it were true, these “hopeful monsters” would have to mate with other hopeful monsters to survive as a species – the odds of which are exponential at best. Additionally, if true, all pregnant women would have cause for concern.

Evolutionists realized they had to explain the sudden appearance of life forms in the Cambrian geologic level in a more scientific-sounding manner. So, rather than abort their theology in light of contrary evidence, they re-invented the Hopeful Monster Hypothesis and now call it Punctuated Equilibrium.

Page 439 –

…Some species, such as horseshoe crabs, have changed very little from the time they
first appeared in the fossil record. In other words, much of the time these species are in
a state of equilibrium. At several points in the fossil record, changes in animals and plants occurred over relatively short periods of time. Some biologists suggest that most
new species are produced by periods of rapid change.

Counterpoint – Saying “some” species have changed very little in the fossil record is disingenuous at best, as is the claim that the fossil record bears evidence of rapid change. It does not. Every species that survived did so as it first appeared in the fossil record. The book goes on to try to explain how this rapid development may have occurred after mass extinctions. Again, this suggestion is made as a way of proposing a logical way for this evolutionary problem to be solved, and it is totally based on faith and not evidence.

Page 439 (continued) – Scientists use the term punctuated equilibrium to describe this pattern of long, stable periods interrupted by brief periods of more rapid change. (Emphasis as it appears in the textbook.)

Counterpoint – Again: there is no evidence to support these “brief periods of more rapid change.” Additionally, the obvious problems with this theory are many:
• There is a sudden explosion of life forms in the fossil record in the Cambrian period, and they continue to exist today as they did back then.
• One species giving birth to another is genetically and observably unsupportable – even if the change happened rapidly.
• If the impossible happened and a “hopeful monster” did exist, another hopeful monster would have to exist at the same time and in the same geographical location in order for the species to reproduce.
• An explanation for the mechanism that produces this type of rapid genetic change has evaded even the most creative evolutionist’s mind.

• Intermediate or transitional forms from a common ancestor in the fossil record have not been found in over 150 years of research – even evidence of rapid change should have been discovered in this length of time. And the ones they claim to be “evidence” have all been discounted or just plain stretches of the imagination.

In conclusion, the explosion of life at the Cambrian period not only contradicts any plausible explanation for evolution but supports the biblical account wherein we are told that every life form was created in the first week of the creation. A prediction to support the biblical narrative would state that we can expect to find a sudden explosion of life at one point in time, which is just what the evidence reveals. So while unbelievers scramble to create a theory to explain the facts that somehow seems believable to unbelievers, they must rely on faith NOT evidence.
In the words of the late Dr. Duane Gish: “It is unbelievable what unbelievers have to believe to be unbelievers.”

And to that, I say AMEN!

NOTE FROM TPATH: Over the billion years, give or take a few hundred million, since the earth has supported life and over those billion years, approximately 50 billion life forms have existed. However, out of that massive architecture of time and creature there exists only one species aware of life and death, past and future and a desire to comprehend the vastness of his world.

If uncontrolled or undesigned evolution were the only mechanism for the advancement of all species, should there not be hundreds, thousands or even millions of evolved creatures which had reached that level of “random evolution”?

COUNTERPOINT PART II

Commentary by:
TPATH Contributor

Ms. RoseAnn Salanitri

April 24, 2015 ~TPATH~ As discussed in Part 1 of this series, it has become my mission to present a counterpoint to what is being taught in high school biology classes in a manner designed to challenge the faith of students. In an effort to accomplish this mission, I will be reviewing the most popular biology book in America, Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2006, Biology, written by Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine.

Part 1 focused on Darwinian evolution, which presented the theory with much psychological manipulation and innuendos designed to make the student believe evolution is well-supported by the facts and any other theory is for the mentally-challenged. Part 2 will focus on the teachings of the origination of organic molecules, and the misrepresentations and downright lies associated with the Miller-Urey experiment.

Charles Darwin acknowledged the need for a way for organic matter to “evolve” from inorganic matter. In other words, he recognized that there had to be a way for life to evolve from non-life – or a bunch of chemicals. The book tries to address this problem by discussing the Miller-Urey experiment in a way that is both misleading and intellectually dishonest.

On page 424, in the first two sentences in the section entitled THE FIRST ORGANIC MOLECULES, the problem is accurately presented. The book acknowledges that atoms cannot assemble themselves into living cells, and that the oxygen in our atmosphere would destroy many kinds of organic molecules that are protected within a cell. That’s just about where the honesty ends. The next sentence declares that the early Earth was different – inferring that the atmosphere was different. The first paragraph ends with a sentence: Could organic molecules have evolved under those conditions?

Counterpoint – First, the problem is acknowledged, then the student is cleverly led to believe that the problems we observe today may not have existed in the past. This is an important assumption, since circumstances would have to have been different in order to support different experimental observations: that the oxygen in our atmosphere would not allow such an evolution to occur.

But is the assumption correct?

In order to circumvent the oxygen problem, evolutionists have proposed that the early atmosphere did not contain oxygen. Then they go on to assume that the oxygen problem would gradually change as primitive life produced oxygen through processes such as photosynthesis. Aside from the fact that geological and paleontological research has revealed that an oxygen-based atmosphere must have existed from the earliest times, the argument is circular at best. In other words, if the presence of oxygen in the early atmosphere would prevent the evolution of life from non-life and the argument is that oxygen would have slowly been produced from primitive life, you should be asking: if you can’t produce life with oxygen in the atmosphere, how can life produce the oxygen? If you’re confused, you should be.

Page 424 – presents the Miller-Urey experiment as a possible answer to their dilemma. In this experiment back in the 1950s, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey designed an experiment where they added hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water to represent the atmosphere of the early Earth. They did NOT add oxygen. Then they passed an electrical current through the mixture to simulate lightening.

The book goes on to say that the results were “spectacular” because the experiment produced several amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. Then it declares:

Miller and Urey’s experiments suggested how mixtures of the organic compounds
necessary for life could have arisen from simpler compounds present on a primitive Earth.

Counterpoint – The book conveniently omits the fact that the proteins created were the wrong kind needed for life.

Page 424 continued – Under Figure 17-8 of the experiment, the book states in an egregiously misleading way (a downright lie, actually):

This and other experiments suggest how simple compounds found on the early Earth could have combined to form the organic compounds needed for life.

It concludes this section by admitting that the simulations used by Miller-Urey were inaccurate but goes on to say:

However, similar experiments based on more current knowledge of Earth’s early atmosphere have also produced organic compounds…

Counterpoint – Oh – where to start! Let’s begin with a logical question:

If the unsuccessful Miller-Urey experiment was succeeded by successful experiments,
why did the authors go into detail about the unsuccessful experiment and exclude any information about the “similar experiments” that they imply were successful?

Perhaps the answer is that the organic compounds that were created over the past 60 some odd years were just as unsuccessful for the origination of life as the experiment in question – regardless of what the authors would have students believe. What the students are not told is that the amino acids produced in the experiment were the wrong types of proteins to produce life and that the atmosphere created was basically irrelevant, as were the rest of the conditions produced in the experiment.

Here’s another critical question that demands an answer regarding the origination of a cell:

If somehow we were able to create in a laboratory experiment a situation where carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids were produced, would we have created a living cell?

The answer is still a loud and resounding NO!!!!!!!!

Today we know that cells are much more than an assemblage of chemicals. They are complex machines that perform a myriad of functions to produce and sustain life. You see, the question is not whether organic molecules can be synthesized in a laboratory, the question is how can molecules (first inorganic, which then evolve into organic) produce living cells – or how can life evolve from non-life?

After over a half of a century of experimentation, evolutionists still can’t create the right types of proteins in the right conditions to produce life, never mind trying to figure out how genetic codes are created. But somehow – someway – they manage to present their failures to our children in a manner that makes them seem credible. However, it is the responsibility of parents to teach truth to their children. Somehow – someway – we have delegated that responsibility to strangers, and then we are surprised by the strange ideas that our children have been indoctrinated into believing. Hence, this series is being written to assist parents in teaching the truth. Hopefully, they will do just that – for if they do, the truth will most definitely prevail.

“Because every dark cloud has a silver IODIDE lining…”: Dutchsinse

Watch the live stream here! Support our operations moving forward… and spread earthquake awareness with a T-shirt or sticker from the Dutchsinse merchandise pick: https://teespring.com/stores/dutchsinseofficial ________ Watch live video from DutchsinseOfficial on www.twitch.tv MUST FOLLOW DUTCHSINSE FOR AT LEAST 10 MIN BEFORE COMMENTING

Blog Stats

Select Category

Can’t find what your looking for: Search

Gravatar Profile

Since 1871 the United States president and the United States Congress has been playing politics under a different set of rules and policies. If you want to know more go here,
http://spiritwolf04.com/2012/06/29/abolish-the-corporate-government-of-1871-our-sovereignty-was-stolen-from-us/
I am passionate about people and our freedoms that God gave us as people, per our organic constitution, and our Government today and as of 144 years ago they have slowly been taken our rights and freedoms away, I'm here to let people know the lies and deceit that the governments around the world and the main stream media have been telling the American people, all the propaganda they have been spreading to keep you in fear and in slaved. I also come from a military background both Marine and Army. I see the corruption that is going on within the the "Government". They have taken God out, we know what happens when we take God out, we will fall.